Phrase "landing runway" vs. "cleared to land"

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
:

On Jan 16, 5:17*am, "Jim Carter" wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
messagenews:1ee64105-a800-4e4
...

...

There is no min reported visibility requirement for the approach.

-Robert

The plates for runway 22 at Mather (MHR) that I just pulled show the
following:

* * ILS or LOC RWY 22L * *Cat A * *500 - 1/2
* * RNAV (GPS) RWY 22L * *Cat A * *300 - 1/2
* * VOR/DME RWY 22L * *Cat A * *700 - 1/2

I may be reading these wrong, but these are the lowest (straight in
with a
ll
equipment working) that I see. Please show me where there is no
minimum visibility requirement for this runway, and isn't 001OVC
1/8SM below minimums by quite a bit?

1) There is no minimum reported vis required. The vis you site here is
flight visibility.
2) 001OVC is ok for part 91. The only requirement for part 91 is that
you can see the rabbit through the fog at 200 (the 500 you site is for
loc only) feet . The light tends to shine through the fog. In anycase,
the requirement of 200 feet is what the pilot sees, not what the tower
reports.



Well, there's nothing stopping you from making the approach in the first
place, part 91, and once you have a runway element in sight you are
permitted to land, so it's not really an issue for you anyway.
Still think it;'s a bad idea..

Bertie